Thanks coinflip for posting the clarification and nipping this in the bud!
I do believe that asking LTIPP council members to vote after they have already declared a conflict of interest is not wise and asking for trouble , as has been the case even predating my tweet, with Synthetix and their supporters first raising the issue.
It is one thing for delegates to vote in support of a proposal rejected by the council, and another to say it was a hung council due to conflict of interest so you exercise your own judgment here.
I fully trust you as a high integrity person! Only sharing this in the spirit of procedural improvements to the process that can minimize allegations like we saw for this case. After all, as Machiavellie said it is important not only to be just but also appear to be just 
Here are some options to consider for future tie-breakers;
-
Program manager or facilitator (@Matt_StableLab ) has a tie-breaking vote, as we are planning to do with the STEP proposal if it is needed
-
Application advisors get a vote in case of a tie
-
The DAO is informed there is a hung jury so they need to exercise their own judgment in this particular case
Either of the 3 options are better than asking council members to vote after they have declared a CoI. I do understand how in the heat of the moment and quickness of things these matters weren’t fully considered, but hoping for improvements next time!
Sharing the names of these projects would be appreciated so those who wish to can vote independently on these edge cases knowing the council was hung. Speaking for me personally, i would not vote against the councils recommendation but if i knew it was a hung jury then i would exercise my own decision making.